No Trump Immunity Act

Summary#

This bill, titled the "No Trump Immunity Act," would stop federal executive agencies from giving immunity or broad legal releases to a President, Vice President, their family members, certain related people and entities, or businesses they own. The main change is a ban on executive-branch releases, waivers, acquittals, discharges, or other blocks to legal claims for those people and entities. The bill’s stated goal is to prevent broad protections that would keep those individuals or their companies from being investigated or prosecuted for certain serious actions.

• Who is covered: the President, Vice President, family members (a long list in the bill), trusts, parents, siblings, related companies, affiliates, and “presidentially owned entities” (businesses the President or VP owns, except small, widely held companies defined in the bill).
• Main change: no executive agency may grant releases, waivers, acquittals, discharges, barring, or preclusion of one or more legal claims to those covered people or entities.
• Specific listed concerns: the bill explicitly mentions blocking immunity for things such as facilitating money laundering for certain foreign groups, trading on insider information about an imminent war with Iran, abusing young women, and illegally steering taxpayer dollars to associates.
• Reference to existing action: the bill refers to a May 19, 2026 order by the Attorney General and would bar similar broad releases of claims.

What it means for you#

• President and Vice President

  • The executive branch could not issue a release or waiver that would block investigations or prosecution for covered claims against them or their covered entities.
  • The bill defines which business ownership by a President or Vice President counts as a “presidentially owned entity.”

• Family members, trusts, and related companies

  • The same ban on executive-branch releases or waivers would apply to the named relatives, trusts, and companies linked to the President or Vice President.

• Federal executive agencies (including the Department of Justice)

  • They would be barred from using their authority to give the covered kinds of immunity or legal preclusion to the listed people and entities.
  • The bill does not say how agencies should act if a court or the President takes other actions affecting immunity.

• Businesses

  • A business in which the President or Vice President has an ownership stake could not get immunity or a release from an executive agency under the bill’s terms, unless it meets the bill’s small-holder exception.

• General public and legal processes

  • This could mean certain investigations, civil claims, or prosecutions could move forward without being blocked by an executive-branch release. The bill does not say how courts would handle those actions.

What is unclear: The bill does not explain how it interacts with presidential pardon powers, judicial decisions, or independent legal opinions about presidential immunity. It also does not explain enforcement steps or penalties if an agency violates the ban.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill text does not include a fiscal note or budget estimate.
• It does not state whether federal agencies would need extra staff or resources to follow the new rule.
• It does not identify any new fines, fees, or funding changes.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to prevent the executive branch from using its power to shield a President, Vice President, or their associates from investigation or prosecution for serious alleged misconduct.
• A possible argument for the bill is that it would promote accountability by stopping broad releases that could close criminal or civil claims against covered people or entities.
• The bill targets specific harms (for example, money laundering for certain groups, insider trading tied to imminent war, abuse of young women, and illegal steering of taxpayer money), suggesting supporters want to block immunity in cases seen as especially serious.
• The definition of “presidentially owned entity” attempts to exclude widely held companies where the President or Vice President has a small stake, narrowing the bill’s business reach.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the bill does not explain how it affects the President’s constitutional powers, such as pardons, or legal claims that a sitting President has immunity from prosecution. This could raise legal or constitutional questions.
• The bill does not say how courts should treat its ban, or how violations by an agency would be enforced.
• Some terms in the bill (for example, “abusing or facilitating the abuse of young women”) are broad and not precisely defined, which may cause uncertainty about what conduct is covered.
• The bill only restricts executive agencies. It is unclear whether other branches or actions (judicial rulings, presidential pardons, private settlements) would be affected.
• Without a fiscal note, it is unclear whether implementing the ban would create new administrative costs for agencies or legal costs for the government.